The Corporation -Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott, 2003 What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film is a fascinating discussion on the psychopathic nature of corporations which, by nature of the legal structure under which they are organized, are designed to actively work against the public interest. Numerous examples are discussed where corporations are flagrantly opposed to the public interest, not because the employees in the corporation are necessarily against the public interest but rather that the corporation's legal requirement to maximize profit forces people within the organization to often act against their own interests and against the interests of the public at large.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political?
The film shows us that corporations will do anything to turn profits, even if it means engaging in treasonous behavior such as IBM and Coke did in their collaboration with the Nazis in WWII. Well, if corporations argue that they are legal persons, shouldn't we have the right to try them with treason as we would any human citizen and, if they are found guilty, shouldn't we put treasonous corporations "to death" as we did to the Rosenbergs?
Legal?
Very early on (1886) in American history the corporations were granted the status of being legal persons (Corporate Personhood) which was a primary motive behind their drive towards psychopathic behavior.
Economic?
The film included Eisenhower's argument that the rising military-industrial complex was becoming increasingly more powerful and subverting or abusing the economic interests of the nation. There was also an important discussion on the nature of externalities - corporations seek to shift their expenses and costs onto other people and groups so as to avoid liability. For example, the auto companies make profits selling cars to people but the government is responsible for paying for the roads and bridges so those cars are actually usable. Or another example, an oil company makes a profit selling its useful product but leaves individuals and the government to clean up after the environmental disasters it creates.
Technological?
The film did a good job showing how corporations sought to control technology they had developed to control market share and lock societies into dependence on their product. A prominent example was the interview with Vandana Shiva who explained that corporations were trying to seek patents and other protections on genetically-engineered seeds so as to control how, when, and where they will be used and for how long they could still germinate after being stored for long periods of time. Thus the agricultural companies are trying to find a way to force "planned obsolescence" into organic matter such as seeds.
Media and informational?
There was an excellent case study on the suppression of a story about Bovine Growth Hormone by a local Fox channel. Top management at Fox were pressured by Monsanto to suppress the story and Fox management fired the reporters working on the story after they refused to keep quiet. The film revealed that it was perfectly legal for media to lie and showed just how easily corporations could suppress the free dissemination of news in our society.
Organizational?
The structure of the corporation is carefully scrutinized - it is shown that no single person in a corporation really has control over what it does - employees work for management, management works for the CEO, the CEO works for the shareholders, etc. The corporation seems to have a life of its own and is not controlled by any human empathy or rationality.
Educational?
The film alluded to an interesting scenario where two college students sold advertising spaces on their personal possessions and clothing to earn money. It wasn't surprising at all that FirstUSA sponsored them to talk about "credit card responsibility." The company used these students to attract and prepare the next generation of young people for a life of credit card debt.
Behavioral?
The corporation is analyzed from the perspective of being a psychopathic individual - it is shown that no one can really control its decision-making processes.
Cultural?
The film discusses how corporations were initially structured to fulfill a public need. They were chartered to solve specific problems, such as building a bridge, or building a canal, or forming a local agricultural enterprise, rather than chartered specifically to maximize profit. Today the culture of the corporation has changed - they are no longer expected to work for the public good, and that needs to be reversed.
Ecological?
The film shows us how a corporation's drive to externalize risks and expenses often results in incredible environmental degradation - and so far destruction to the environment does not yet affect GDP negatively. Indeed many externalizations grow the GDP at the expense of our standard of living - for example, cancer from smoking increases medical spending and thus increases GDP, but so too does human misery increase.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The case study on the Cochabamba Water Wars was particularly riveting because it showed the extreme behavior corporations will resort to if there is no attempt to control them - in Cochabamba residents were forbidden to collect rainwater after the municipal water system was sold off and privatized!
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
The film continued the Cochabamba case study by implying that the best solution towards reigning in runaway corporate greed was to revert to public ownership. I'm not so sure this is always the best route to take. After all, even before privatization the Cochabamba water system was deficient and headed by individuals who made little or no effort to extend service to the many people that did not have access to the municipal water supply. It takes more effort than simple nationalization to improve access to public resources - if the bureaucracy in either private or public institutions is not reformed so that it actually works in the public's interest, it doesn't really matter if the institution is public or private. Corruption thrives in both types of institutions and nationalization of runaway private firms does nothing to address the structural flaws in bureaucracy that allow such abuse to take place in both private and public companies.
What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
The film has spurred me to look into the nature of corporate charters before the era of greedy "personhood" that emerged in the 19th century. It would be interesting to find records and analysis of some of the earliest corporations to study their behavior and find out how exactly they were received by the communities they operated in. Was there similar friction between citizens and corporations in the 1700s as there is today or was there really a more harmonious relationship?
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The film seems to be addressed to the general American public. The film attempts to use some shocking stories (IBM and Coke et al) to convince the public that corporations are not at all as saintly as we have been taught to believe. However, I can't imagine anyone who has been struck by this film to really do anything or even know what to do - the film doesn't really elaborate on any plan of action because the issue is so overwhelmingly complex.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film doesn't really outline any strategies for dismantling the power that corporations hold even though it seems to support public ownership as a means to circumvent corporate power. I discussed above why I think public ownership won't work if the underlying problem of bureaucracy isn't addressed. Interviewees towards the end do suggest that corporations often work towards self-destruction.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Does the film convey different perspectives on the issues?
Yes, it offers opinions supporting the role corporations play in our society from figures such as Friedman and contrasts them with individuals who hold radically different positions, such as Chomsky.
Is it overly “balanced”?
No, the film makes it clear that it thinks corporations are psychopathic entities that need to be reined in.
Does it enhance scientific literacy? If so, what kind of scientific literacy is promoted?
The film delves into a lot of the intricacies behind corporate law, corporate finance, and corporate organization and decision-making.
Does it enroll viewers, or preach at them?
I found the film to be very engaging, much more so in the case studies than in the interviews.
Does it include images or examples that are likely to stick with viewers?
I don't recall any particularly powerful images that stuck with me; in many cases the dialog and discussion in the case studies was much more powerful than any of the imagery used in the case studies themselves.
The Corporation - Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott, 2003
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film is a fascinating discussion on the psychopathic nature of corporations which, by nature of the legal structure under which they are organized, are designed to actively work against the public interest. Numerous examples are discussed where corporations are flagrantly opposed to the public interest, not because the employees in the corporation are necessarily against the public interest but rather that the corporation's legal requirement to maximize profit forces people within the organization to often act against their own interests and against the interests of the public at large.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The case study on the Cochabamba Water Wars was particularly riveting because it showed the extreme behavior corporations will resort to if there is no attempt to control them - in Cochabamba residents were forbidden to collect rainwater after the municipal water system was sold off and privatized!
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
The film continued the Cochabamba case study by implying that the best solution towards reigning in runaway corporate greed was to revert to public ownership. I'm not so sure this is always the best route to take. After all, even before privatization the Cochabamba water system was deficient and headed by individuals who made little or no effort to extend service to the many people that did not have access to the municipal water supply. It takes more effort than simple nationalization to improve access to public resources - if the bureaucracy in either private or public institutions is not reformed so that it actually works in the public's interest, it doesn't really matter if the institution is public or private. Corruption thrives in both types of institutions and nationalization of runaway private firms does nothing to address the structural flaws in bureaucracy that allow such abuse to take place in both private and public companies.
What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
The film has spurred me to look into the nature of corporate charters before the era of greedy "personhood" that emerged in the 19th century. It would be interesting to find records and analysis of some of the earliest corporations to study their behavior and find out how exactly they were received by the communities they operated in. Was there similar friction between citizens and corporations in the 1700s as there is today or was there really a more harmonious relationship?
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The film seems to be addressed to the general American public. The film attempts to use some shocking stories (IBM and Coke et al) to convince the public that corporations are not at all as saintly as we have been taught to believe. However, I can't imagine anyone who has been struck by this film to really do anything or even know what to do - the film doesn't really elaborate on any plan of action because the issue is so overwhelmingly complex.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film doesn't really outline any strategies for dismantling the power that corporations hold even though it seems to support public ownership as a means to circumvent corporate power. I discussed above why I think public ownership won't work if the underlying problem of bureaucracy isn't addressed. Interviewees towards the end do suggest that corporations often work towards self-destruction.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
- Does the film convey different perspectives on the issues?
- Yes, it offers opinions supporting the role corporations play in our society from figures such as Friedman and contrasts them with individuals who hold radically different positions, such as Chomsky.
- Is it overly “balanced”?
- No, the film makes it clear that it thinks corporations are psychopathic entities that need to be reined in.
- Does it enhance scientific literacy? If so, what kind of scientific literacy is promoted?
- The film delves into a lot of the intricacies behind corporate law, corporate finance, and corporate organization and decision-making.
- Does it enroll viewers, or preach at them?
- I found the film to be very engaging, much more so in the case studies than in the interviews.
- Does it include images or examples that are likely to stick with viewers?
- I don't recall any particularly powerful images that stuck with me; in many cases the dialog and discussion in the case studies was much more powerful than any of the imagery used in the case studies themselves.
.< Back to my portfolio